logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.27 2015나2069073
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the first and second preliminary claims added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 26, 2002, the Plaintiff as the primary cause of the claim lent KRW 36,216,505 to the Defendant, KRW 100,00 on October 2, 2002, KRW 55,000,000 on September 1, 2003, KRW 59,364,66 on January 24, 2005, KRW 20,000 on November 17, 2006, and KRW 46,760,00 on April 2, 2007, including lending KRW 50,000,000 on several occasions from around 202 to around 207.

In 2007, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff by settling the loan from the Plaintiff up to that time, but did not set the due date at that time.

In 209, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 according to the above agreement.

After that, around May 3, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 400,000,000 due to the agreed amount that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff when winning the claim for indemnity filed by C against D with the Seoul Central District Court 201Kahap51200.

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 400,000,000 and the delay damages therefrom, in accordance with the instant agreement, since June 27, 2013, C became final and conclusive as partial winning in the claim for reimbursement.

B. Even if the agreement of this case was not established as the first preliminary claim, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff lent 500,000,000 won or more to the Defendant from around 2002 to around 2007, and the Plaintiff was repaid KRW 100,000 among them as part of interest or principal, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remaining loan amount of KRW 400,000,000 and damages for delay.

C. Even if there are different grounds for the second preliminary claim, the Plaintiff paid 500,000,000 won or more to the Defendant from around 2002 to around 2007, which was made without any legal ground, and thus, the Defendant should return the said money with unjust enrichment.

However, there is a problem.

arrow